[#27003] [Bug #2422] splat operator fails on array of 1 element — Raul Parolari <redmine@...>

Bug #2422: splat operator fails on array of 1 element

12 messages 2009/12/02

[#27025] [Backport #2431] StringIO#{gets,readlines} with "" (paragraph mode) trims last "\n" — Hiroshi NAKAMURA <redmine@...>

Backport #2431: StringIO#{gets,readlines} with "" (paragraph mode) trims last "\n"

8 messages 2009/12/04

[#27086] [Feature #2454] OpenSSL has no maintainer — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>

Feature #2454: OpenSSL has no maintainer

16 messages 2009/12/07

[#27120] #to_enum ignores block? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>

Is #to_enum ignoring its block expected?

11 messages 2009/12/09

[#27135] better GC? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...>

Could I put in a small plea for a better GC?

56 messages 2009/12/10
[#27136] Re: better GC? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/12/11

Hi,

[#27476] Re: better GC? — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2010/01/07

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 09:07:16AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#27477] Re: better GC? — Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@...> 2010/01/07

Excerpts from Paul Brannan's message of Thu Jan 07 21:53:34 +0200 2010:

[#27563] Re: better GC? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2010/01/12

[#27199] [Backport #2488] thread usage can result in bad HANDLE — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Backport #2488: thread usage can result in bad HANDLE

12 messages 2009/12/16

[#27286] [Bug #2515] Array#select! — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #2515: Array#select!

17 messages 2009/12/22

[#27327] [Bug #2531] Ruby 1.8.7-p248 fails to cross-compile same version — Luis Lavena <redmine@...>

Bug #2531: Ruby 1.8.7-p248 fails to cross-compile same version

9 messages 2009/12/25

[#27360] [Feature #2542] URI lib should be updated to RFC 39886 — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Feature #2542: URI lib should be updated to RFC 39886

15 messages 2009/12/31

[ruby-core:27144] Re: Ruby's GC

From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2009-12-11 14:57:24 UTC
List: ruby-core #27144
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wr=
ote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:27142] Ruby's GC"
> =A0 =A0on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:02:48 +0900, Gon=E7alo Silva <goncalossilva=
@gmail.com> writes:
>
> |I've lately been talking to Narihiro Nakamura using twitter about Ruby's
> |garbage collector. He started implementing a lazy sweep algorithm but I
> |think we should try to implement a generational GC. Unfortunately this w=
ould
> |need more work but I think that if Ruby's GC is going to change then it
> |should be for the best.
> |
> |What do you think?
>
> I am happy to see someone to try generational GC. =A0A guy in Japan once
> implemented a generational GC for Ruby, but it made Ruby run slower
> for most of the cases, mostly due to write barrier cost.

I suspect that the write barrier can be implemented rather efficiently
depending on how memory layout is done. You need to be able to
efficiently distinguish between mutations to references in old objects
(which need to be remembered) and mutations in new objects, which
don't.

One interesting problem, is what effect a copying GC would have on the
API to C extensions, since object addresses would no longer be stable
over time.

--=20
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

In This Thread